This painting took about 6 weeks so complete. It started from a photo which I took of a bouquet, I had the print enlarged to the size of the canvas, traced it, started painting, then changed almost every element of the photo. The photo which I intended to reproduce exactly, (which felt like cheating…I’ll get back to that), didn’t work and flower by flower I replaced all but one of the original blooms. What looks good in a photo will not necessarily look good in painting.

Many artists, including the masters, have used reproduction methods to complete paintings. Photo projections, camera obscura, tracing, are all methods used to get the image onto the panel prior to painting. Vermeer, Carvaggio, Rembrandt were all likely users of camera obscura and yet this is looked down on? does it diminish the final work because a photographic method was used in the creation of a painting? I used to think that an artwork had to be done by hand alone from start to finish, but I have given up on that. If I can use a method of getting my idea on the panel or canvas faster then I’ll use it. I know I can draw free hand from start to finish, but how does this benefit me if it takes me 3 times as long? Anyway, every painting I’ve done using a projection or from a tracing, I have ended up changing so much it didn’t really resemble the source material anyway, so why not cheat a little. Using a reference or source material is necessary whether it’s from life, memory, a photo, or another piece of art.